Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[ImmortalFlame]

Is there a methodology you can recommend which doesn't have any kind of limits?
No. That's why many are used together.

It's a simple question. Can you answer it. What methods would you use? I'm not asking for a "limitless" methodology, I'm asking what methodology (or methodologies) would you use?

If you avoid giving a specific answer again, I will take that as you admitting that you have no means to determine designed from non-designed objects and your entire argument is groundless.

Then you need to work on HOW you ask questions.
Your question was...
What methods or methodology could you apply to determine which object was designed and which was not?
WHAT does not mean HOW.

Besides, I explained HOW.

No, you didn't. You gave neither a what nor a how. You provided no detail whatsoever on your method or methodology.

By examining the product, based on my understanding of design, I determine if the product meets the standard of design.

Except that's not a method or a methodology. I've asked for the method, i.e: the PROCESS you undertake to reach a conclusion. What process do you go through to reach the conclusion "this is designed" or "this is not designed"?

I don't understand that. Could you please explain and give an example.

We know houses are designed because we see people build them and we are not currently aware of any known natural phenomenon which produces houses. By contrast, we know trees form naturally because we observe them growing from seeds which fall from other trees. The point is that establishing design cannot be done without an understanding or observation of the design process, and it is meaningless to assert design in nature because, without nature to contrast with design, the distinction of design becomes arbitrary.

There is a primary source, and a secondary source is necessary to verify. That is where investigation comes in.

"Primary" and "secondary" are meaningless distinctions. You simply have the evidence put before you. If two or more eyewitnesses come before you, each attesting that they saw a different person commit a murder in a different way, which of them do you determine to be the "primary" source and why would you choose to ignore the others?

 

[nPeace]

Why can't you answer simple, straightforward questions?

I'm concerned there is something wrong with you.
Maybe you just don't know how to say what you really want.

It's a simple question. Can you answer it. What methods would you use? I'm not asking for a "limitless" methodology, I'm asking what methodology (or methodologies) would you use?

I answered.
You asked...
Is there a methodology you can recommend which doesn't have any kind of limits?
Is that not what you asked?
I said, No.

What it seems you really wanted to ask was, What methods would I use.
I answered that too.
It's clear you are not able to say what you mean.
If this is due to limited education, that is understandable, and no one will hold that against you, but please don't try to come over as though the other person is stupid.
Look back at your post, and compare your questions, and you will realize that they are not the same. Then all you have to do is say, "Well, perhaps you didn't understand what I really was asking. What I really meant to ask was...
That way, you won't come over to the person as one who had been smoking marijuana, or taking pot, and the person would be able to work with you.
It would also demonstrate a little humility, and reasonableness... even if you don't have any of those.

If you avoid giving a specific answer again, I will take that as you admitting that you have no means to determine designed from non-designed objects and your entire argument is groundless.

As far as I can see, I can look back, and see that I specifically addressed all your questions.
Perhaps, based on what seems clear to me now, your mind is focused on one answer, and one answer only, and because of that, any other answer, registers in your mind, as no answer.
Knowing what I know now, I can work with that knowledge, and deal with you patiently, but you'll have to meet me half way - that is, you'll have to cut out the arrogance, otherwise you are on your own.... and you can think whatever that mind of yours wants to think.

No, you didn't. You gave neither a what nor a how. You provided no detail whatsoever on your method or methodology.

Oh yes I did.

Except that's not a method or a methodology. I've asked for the method, i.e: the PROCESS you undertake to reach a conclusion. What process do you go through to reach the conclusion "this is designed" or "this is not designed"?

Why is it not a method?
Method : a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one.
That's what I did.

We know houses are designed because we see people build them and we are not currently aware of any known natural phenomenon which produces houses. By contrast, we know trees form naturally because we observe them growing from seeds which fall from other trees. The point is that establishing design cannot be done without an understanding or observation of the design process, and it is meaningless to assert design in nature because, without nature to contrast with design, the distinction of design becomes arbitrary.

Since I am dealing with you according to knowledge, I won't tell you exactly how this sounds to me.
Listen...
We know houses are designed because we see people build them
So would this not mean that if you didn't see people build houses, you wouldn't know it was designed?
I would expect a child two or three years of age to have that limited view, because their level of understanding and reason may not be matured.
However, a mature person would not need to see people build houses to know that it was built, although direct evidence of this would leave no question, but say you never saw a house being built, and you went through a forest, and saw a house for the first time, don't you think there is any knowledge at all, you have, that will allow you to figure out that it was made? Or do you think you would imagine that it grew out the ground like trees do?

Furthermore, I think you are looking at design in a different light, and limited. You are looking a design in the sense of the verb - that is, the process of the product being designed, by the designer.
While I am looking at design in the sense of the noun- it is a finished product, so you are not seeing it being designed, but you are looking at its design - its components have been put together, according to a specific plan of instructions, to perform particular functions, to a desired goal, or purpose. That is design.
So even though I did not see the designer designing the design, by recognizing the design, I can rightly conclude that it had a designer.

This further cements the point of why you kept accusing me - wrongfully of course - of not giving you a method, because your mind was on one track, and I was not on that track with you.

"Primary" and "secondary" are meaningless distinctions. You simply have the evidence put before you. If two or more eyewitnesses come before you, each attesting that they saw a different person commit a murder in a different way, which of them do you determine to be the "primary" source and why would you choose to ignore the others?

We can have many scenarios. None are "fools proof". Police can miss a set fingerprints - the real culprit's, miss blood stains - the real culprit's, witnesses can give false testimony, but the one who did it will know for certain that he did it.
That's the situation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm concerned there is something wrong with you.
Maybe you just don't know how to say what you really want.

You mean other than wanting you to actually answer my questions - something I've said repeatedly.

I answered.
You asked...
Is there a methodology you can recommend which doesn't have any kind of limits?
Is that not what you asked?
I said, No.

You're becoming confused. The question this was referring to was this one:

What methods or methodology could you apply to determine which object was designed and which was not?

What it seems you really wanted to ask was, What methods would I use.
I answered that too.

No, you didn't. You simply said you would look at it. I need a specific methodology. What identifiers would you use?

It's clear you are not able to say what you mean.
If this is due to limited education, that is understandable, and no one will hold that against you, but please don't try to come over as though the other person is stupid.

I've never accused you of being stupid. Just dishonest.

Look back at your post, and compare your questions, and you will realize that they are not the same. Then all you have to do is say, "Well, perhaps you didn't understand what I really was asking. What I really meant to ask was...

Or, you could give a straight answer.

That way, you won't come over to the person as one who had been smoking marijuana, or taking pot, and the person would be able to work with you.

How old are you?

It would also demonstrate a little humility, and reasonableness... even if you don't have any of those.

Wow. Why are you being so rude? You're clearly not a great Christian.

 

[nPeace]

You mean other than wanting you to actually answer my questions - something I've said repeatedly.


You're becoming confused. The question this was referring to was this one:

What methods or methodology could you apply to determine which object was designed and which was not?


No, you didn't. You simply said you would look at it. I need a specific methodology. What identifiers would you use?


I've never accused you of being stupid. Just dishonest.


Or, you could give a straight answer.


How old are you?


Wow. Why are you being so rude? You're clearly not a great Christian.

If I were being rude, I would ask the question you asked, "How old are you?" but I didn't, instead I tried to point out the error you were making by being firm, yet loving.
I tried to do it in such a way as to not be too harsh, but at the same time firm enough that you could see what I was showing you.
I don't think I could have done it any easier, without the certainty that you would miss the point.
I didn't mean to offend you.

 

[ecco]

It seems to me you do not know the definition of evidence. There are many fields for gathering and analyzing evidence.
Science is limited in it's scope.
How many times was this explained to you. Why don't you understand it yet?

Now that's funny.

 

[ecco]

I see evidence, as information gathered primarily through the senses, which can lead one to believe something.

Everything we know is "gathered" through the senses. Why would you have a problem with that?

Are you suggesting that a better way is people sitting naked on a bible and absorbing knowledge through their #$$!!#s?

 

[ecco]

Nobody has ever seen a mountain erupt,

moun·tain
/ˈmount(ə)n/
noun

1. a large natural elevation of the earth's surface rising abruptly from the surrounding level; a large steep hill.
   "the village is backed by awe-inspiring mountains"
   synonyms: peak, height, mount, prominence, summit, pinnacle, alp; More
   

Some mountains, like Kilauea, Vesuvius, and St. Helens are formed by volcanic activity. Some, like Everest, are formed by plate tectonics.

 

[ecco]

GOING UNDER THE KNIFE'' NOW CAN MEAN BLOODLESS BRAIN SURGERY
Not too long ago, bloodless brain surgery was shrugged off as science fiction.
<snip>
Doing nothing would have increased Jessica''s chance of suffering hemorrhagic stroke, or bleeding in the brain, by 50 percent by the time she is 35. Undergoing open-skull surgery at 21 was not much of an alternative, either.

Last week, Jessica went under the knife--the gamma knife that is -- at Barnes - Jewish Hospital, which took care of her problem in about 22 minutes. That same day, Jessica went home.
<snip>

I just looked at the article you cut and pasted. It was written without any red or red. It was perfectly readable in just plain black text. Did you feel it was necessary to use red or red because you thought we couldn't understand it without all the red or red? Or were you just bored and needed to play with color?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If I were being rude, I would ask the question you asked, "How old are you?" but I didn't, instead I tried to point out the error you were making by being firm, yet loving.

Oh, I get it. It's only rude when other people do it. When you do it, it's being "firm, yet loving".

So loving you insinuated I was using drugs. Weird definition of love.

I tried to do it in such a way as to not be too harsh, but at the same time firm enough that you could see what I was showing you.

You showed me nothing. You just insulted me. And now that I've pointed out that this makes you a bad Christian, suddenly you're acting like you were trying to be a kindly teacher all of a sudden. Your insecurity is showing.

I don't think I could have done it any easier, without the certainty that you would miss the point.
I didn't mean to offend you.

You didn't - you directly insulted me, multiple times. You cast insinuations about my character, repeatedly patronized me (and are continuing to do so) and were completely unable to debate me in a reasonable, rational manner.

You are not qualified to debate this subject, and you are a poor Christian.

 

[nPeace]

Oh, I get it. It's only rude when other people do it. When you do it, it's being "firm, yet loving".

So loving you insinuated I was using drugs. Weird definition of love.


You showed me nothing. You just insulted me. And now that I've pointed out that this makes you a bad Christian, suddenly you're acting like you were trying to be a kindly teacher all of a sudden. Your insecurity is showing.


You didn't - you directly insulted me, multiple times. You cast insinuations about my character, repeatedly patronized me (and are continuing to do so) and were completely unable to debate me in a reasonable, rational manner.

You are not qualified to debate this subject, and you are a poor Christian.

I will apologize to you for perhaps my poor choice of expressions, and I could have been a bit more tactful, but I did not insult you, and if I came over as though I did, I do apologize for that because it was not intended.


However, I make no apology for what I consider a loving gesture

in trying to point out your arrogance, and your trying to belittle me, by treating me as though I was a child, and stupid,
You repeatedly did this, and if I were not a good Christian, you wouldn't even be responding to me now, because the response you would have gotten would not have been as gentle as I tried to be.
I simply wanted it to be clear though that you were being arrogant - not humble, and you are showing it again in your last statement.

However, as the good Christian I am, I will apologize for any hurt feelings I caused, and please, bare in mind that in most cases, you would not have gotten an apology from someone who wasn't Christian.

 

[tas8831]

What? You don't either? My pleasure.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
Don't thank me, thank Google, and Wikipedia, and WWW, and technology, and the one who gave us life, and a brain to go with it, and the fact you are able to use it, because unfortunately some can't - no fault of their own.

Why would I thank you for copy-pasting wikipedia without quotation marks?

Pity you did not read down a bit further in your wiki link to see this:

"Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method."​

and:

"In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

The burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges.

When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence."​

Curious as to why you thought I did not know what evidence it.

There are many fields for gathering and analyzing evidence.

Examples, please. And maybe a note on their success rates?

First, let me refer you to a post of mine, that shows why the research Christians use is superior.

I am sure I will be totally overwhelmed by the impressive nature of this demonstration...

Advantage of religion over science.
Please just consider a small change to the second line. Religion uses science and is not incompatible with it true science.

Please define "true science."

Also

please do not miss the success rates mention in that post, and then return to ask for them.

I saw nothing about success rates, just a handful of self-serving assertions and a few links to some laughably silly religious propaganda.

So please provide the success rates of religious thought from unbiased sources.

You ended that post with:

"Perhaps the pursuit of the ToE, is not really the Theory of Everything, but rather the Theory of Evil, being driven on by a force that escapes their perception."

Wow... Misrepresentation followed by a poisoning fallacy and perhaps an ad hominem, to boot.

Some tend to do that, so I though I'd give you a heads up.

I can see why they would, since there is nothing there.

The below post also contains very important methods, and success rates.
God is spirit - Can't be seen or felt physically, how does one test or detect God?

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/where-do-you-put-your-faith.209410/page-8#post-5769054

There was also nothing there concerning success rates.

Do you understand what I am asking for? it seems not - success rates are something like this:


Breast cancer survival statistics & results

What your posts presented were anecdotes and assertions.

Like here:

Examples
I have seen results every time from...
Effects of spirit - Matthew 10:20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11, 12; 21:14, 15; John 14:26; Hebrews 4:12
Effects of prayer - Matthew 6:7, 8; Mark 14:38
Effects of God's word, the Bible - Psalms 1:1-3; 119
These give clear evidence of the existence of God. These are all spiritual "instruments" that we use to test that conclusion. There is no physical instrument that can be used to do this.​

Anecdotes - and pretty bad ones, at that. No evidence, no science, no evidence.

Below are methods that science itself uses, but are also used by Christian and unqualified scientists.

Christian scientists - you mean like Deeje?

I'm am going to hold my breath, and swear that you won't ask for the success rate for these.

I am omitting your irrelevant wiki link/pastes.

Most things are. Science cannot address that for which no evidence exists,this is true. But what about the analysis of events for which there should be evidence, but there isn't? Say, a world-wide flood? Say, contemporary corroboration of the sky going black, earthquakes, and the dead rising from their graves when Jesus died?

Self-reflection is not that hard.

- delete ranting-
Scientists are concerned with doing science, not disproving God, correct?
In fact, scientists know that science proves nothing, much more is incapable of disproving any supernatural being.

Hard to follow that rant.

Shame that you did not even try to answer my question, most likely because you cannot, even using your imaginary "Christian science."

 

[tas8831]

And from this diversion, I am assuming that you do not think Vesuvius erupted in 19 A.D.?

No no.
The question(s) went like this...
Say you did not know, How would you find out?
Let us say that you never saw mountains erupt, and it takes millions of years. Would you mind demonstrating that you would not have to interpret, and make suppositions, in order to draw conclusions.

I get that YOU cannot answer my questions, but your continual feeble attempts at burden shifting are tiresome. And if I did not address your phony scenario the way you wanted me to, perhaps you should work on your delivery - I addressed it as I interpreted it.

Can you say that your conclusions are 100% correct?

No, nobody can. Well, no honest person, anyway.

Please answer -

And from this diversion, I am assuming that you do not think Vesuvius erupted in 19 A.D.?

Are you saying that the conclusions of volcanologists and geologists regarding the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A.D. was based on 'suppositions'?

No. Apparently you don't understand what I am asking you do do.

You are asking me to waste time going down your face-saving rabbit hole rather than simply address the issue. If you are afraid to tell me whether or not you accept that Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D. just say so.

It seems more like this here is the diversion.

You mean my attempts to answer your silly scenarios? Then stop presenting them!

Well, I would look at it and I would notice that it shows evidence of manufacture - screws, welding joints, rivets, etc.... I would conclude that humans made it.

So in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion, you used prior knowledge - what you know - that is, 1) anything that has joints fixed in place by screws, nuts and bolts, rivets... is evidence it was manufactured, 2) by ... a skilled crafter ...
You can do that without seeing the manufacturer.

Yes, because I KNOW the manufacturers are humans.

What if all the rivets, etc., were cleverly covered over with a seamless material, would you still be able to tell?

Down the rabbit hole we go - funny how frequently you do this when what you apparently thought were GOTCHA!s turned out to be busts...

When we look at, for example, a "biological" cell, and we examine its working components, carrying out particular functions, satisfying a set of specific rules and instructions, intended to reach particular goals, our prior knowledge, of factories, machines, computer programs, etc.,

Wow - how could you do all that by looking through a microscope?

What "plan" can you see under a microscope? What "goals"? Here are some cells:

Point out the "carrying out particular functions, satisfying a set of specific rules and instructions, intended to reach particular goals" please.

- the fact that they are designed with an intended goal by a mind with a plan, leads us to reasonably conclude that these "living factories, machines, and programs of life", were designed by one with a intelligent mind.

LOL!

Wow.... It is almost as if you already had your mind made up about any and everything you might ever see! And no question begging or anything... LOL!

Great 'argument via analogy', but it fails.

We know it's not a human design, therefore logically, the intelligent mind is greater.

Non sequitur.
HOW do you KNOW it is 'designed' at all?

YOU DON'T. You just want it to be so that it fits your "Christian science" [sic].

I am not avoiding anything.
You cannot determine that I am serious about debating, by your own standards, which may be totally biased, and this may be just a way to worm your way out of the debate, so I'll see.

Yes, I totally always try to worm my way out of 'debate' with people that are 100% unwilling to admit error, 100% dead-set on God being the answer to anything, but yeah, I am totally biased...

I am very serious when I am debating evolutionist - dead serious.

No, I think you are rather silly. You present anecdotes and assertions and call it evidence and 'success rates.' You declare without knowing that cells under a microscope are 'designed' and claim they show plan and purpose and all this despite having no way to know any of that.

Serious? More like comical.

To start, I don't think you actually know what supposition means:

A belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.
‘they were working on the supposition that his death was murder’

If you had supposed that his death was murder (using the dictionary example), then found evidence that the dead person had been shot 3 times in the back and strangled, it is no longer supposition, is it?

I don't think you seriously believe what you said.

Ah, so you cannot bring yourself to admit that you do not know what "supposition" means, got it.

Yes. If you made a supposition, you have made a supposition.
So if you supposed that someone was murdered, before looking at the evidence - just making an assumption, you have made a supposition.
After you found out that the person was shot three times in the back, and you assumed the person was murdered, on the basis that you have no proof, or certain knowledge, you have made another assumption. You may have missed the three dents in the metal plate on the wall, where the bullets ricocheted, and lack the knowledge that the man was a marksman, and faked his "murder".

Right, shot himself in the back 3 times via ricochets. Another rabbit hole.
Your GOTCHA failed again, so like every other religious fanatic I have ever encountered, you shift the goal posts.

Not playing your game.

You see, things are not as simple as we try to make them.

You see, in my scenario it worked - you didn't like it, so added to it to save face.

Not working.

So you have some evidence, but still not enough to prevent you assuming, and making suppositions, and because the evidence is circumstantial evidence, you have to make inference. You don't always arrive at the correct conclusion.

You mean like when you looked in the microscope, saw some cells, and without doing any other investigation, concluded that they were "carrying out particular functions, satisfying a set of specific rules and instructions, intended to reach particular goals" and "the fact that they are designed with an intended goal by a mind with a plan, leads us to reasonably conclude that these "living factories, machines, and programs of life", were designed by one with a intelligent mind"?

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference....

That was a horrible website, no wonder you cited it. Testimony is the best direct evidence? Those fools apparently have not read the decades of research regarding how unreliable such 'evidence' is.

I agree with the system that admits it is imperfect and is willing to adjust as needed.
I don't know where you got the impression that religion doesn't do that. We do, all the time.[/qoute]
Really? So you do not accept that the dead rose form their graves when Jesus died?

It doesn't need to. It might have to if new evidence is found that better explains the phenomenon.

Therefore it was not correct. True?

Therefore it depends. Hypotheses are not always super-simple, one-thing-only deals, some hypotheses are more involved. If you have the hypothesis that cells are Designed because "carrying out particular functions, satisfying a set of specific rules and instructions, intended to reach particular goals" and you discover that they do carry out particular functions, satisfying a set of specific rules and instructions, but those rules are not intended to reach particular goals, would you say that cells are not deigned?


It is obvious where you are going with this - science wrong, religion good! - but your simplistic take on it all shows that your arguments are more out of desperation than any in-depth thought.

Yes I understand that some theories are not completely overturned.

Good.

Back to hypotheses - you do understand that an hypothesis is not a 'theory' in today's scientific usage of the term, right? Because that is what your line of questioning is starting to hint at. And if so, then
I think your line of questioning belies the naivete in your understanding of science.

You guys do like to do that don't you?
I always wonder what gets people to that stage.
Is it that PhDs go to one's head, and they suddenly think that no one else has a brain, to read and understand?

No, we do not like to 'do that.' It is that very often the things people write leads us to certain conclusions.

What do you suppose goes through the head of someone that knows that they cannot understand the science, but insist that their opinion on the science is unimpeachable no matter what? There are some creationist on this forum right now that fit that bill - where is your concern for them(you)?

I know the difference, and throughout this post you have jumped to numerous wrong conclusions,

Examples please.
It is not jumping to wrong conclusions when I address your scenarios in ways that you hoped I wouldn't have. It is not jumping to wrong conclusions when I conclude that you don't know the difference between hypothesis and theory in science when your writing hints at that conclusion.

but it does demonstrate why you ask people for definitions, and claim they don't know, when everyone has access to free dictionaries, better yet WWW.

I ask for definitions to see if people like you actually know what you are talking about.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Worst yet Deeje, they find fingerprints on the door handle, a drop or two of blood, and forensic evidence shows DNA is a match. So the conclusion - Hedidit. End of story. Case closed. You know what I find most interesting, an eyewitness steps forward, and says, "No, he didn't do it. I saw who did it." Their response - "Get lost creep. We've got our man. You can sell your fairytale story in the gossip column."

I like to watch Forensic Files, and have already seen several episodes where up to three different eyewitnesses identified the wrong person, as confirmed by the scientific evidence. One such episode was seen yesterday - a woman who misidentified her husband as her attacker, for which he did 18 years in prison before advances in DNA testing led to his exoneration and release.

The assumptions regarding ERVs, are just an added serious of assumptions to support the assumption of evolution from common descent.

There is a difference between an unfounded assumption, such as that man was created by a god, and one supported by evidence and experience. I'm going to go out on a limb here an assume that you formed in your mother's womb some number of decades ago, was born and took your first breath one day, continued to grow and develop after that including learning to speak and write. And I've never met you. How did I do? Did I get any of it right? Were those reasonable assumptions, or should we just nihilistically throw our hands up and say that these are mere assumptions that have no value?

Can you say that your conclusions are 100% correct?

No, but they don't need to be. They just need to be useful. If an idea can be used to predict or control outcomes better than competing ideas, we throw out the ones that don't work and keep the one that does.

Newton's views on gravity were not 100% correct as Einstein later demonstrated, but they work in most engineering applications including space travel, and account for most astronomical observation. So, they are still used and useful. This is called empirical adequacy.

Instrumentalism is the philosophical position that statements including scientific theories may be tools for useful prediction without reference to their possible truth or falsity.

If a hypothesis is correct, why does it need to change

Correct isn't the best word. Useful is. Was Newton correct? Not as correct as Einstein, but Newton's ideas were and remain very useful. We modify existing ideas to make them more useful when possible.

If a hypotheses is useful to predict outcomes, we keep it and use it. If tweaking it or adding to it makes it better at predicting outcomes, then keep the modifications, too. Correct isn't relevant.

How do you determine what is design?

One way is by noting features in whatever it is that is being considered that don't appear in nature without an intelligence present. A watch cog is something that nature never provides. It must be manufactured. So, a polished, pure aluminum, circular object with multiple teeth of equal length and regular spacing can be called intelligently designed.

Written symbolic language is another example of something that always requires intelligence.

I said they just proudly dismissed the testimony. On what basis did they dismiss it?

Contradictory physical evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you think scientists are concerned with whether God is or not, or whether Jesus rose from the dead or not? The only ones that care about that are the atheistic scientists and the Creationist scientists... and the later are good with the evidence they have. The atheistic ones however, don't seem to be too happy with that.

Science is not interested in anything that doesn't help it discover how the elements of our world relate to one another.

Atheists aren't interested faith-based religious beliefs. We seldom care what others choose to believe by faith. Being empiricists, what atheists care about is what such people know and can demonstrate.

Would you mind demonstrating that you would not have to interpret, and make suppositions, in order to draw conclusions.

2 apples mixed with 2 more apples gives 4 apples. If you want to say that that is supposition, subjective interpretation, or believed by faith, then what is the basis for continued discussion? Coming to such conclusions is useful, which is evidence of the validity of the underlying assumptions and principles of empirical activity such as science and much of daily life.

When we look at, for example, a "biological" cell, and we examine its working components, carrying out particular functions, satisfying a set of specific rules and instructions, intended to reach particular goals, our prior knowledge, of factories, machines, computer programs, etc., - the fact that they are designed with an intended goal by a mind with a plan, leads us to reasonably conclude that these "living factories, machines, and programs of life", were designed by one with a intelligent mind.

There is no evidence that life was designed or that it exists for an intended goal. Concluding an intelligent designer looking at the complexity of a living cell is a special pleading fallacy, and a violation of Occam's parsimony. What one is doing there is saying that "This cell seems too complex to me to have arisen undesigned, so I'm concluding that there must be a designer."

Not only is that an incredulity fallacy ("I can't imagine it, so it can't be true"), but it is special pleading to say that a cell needs a designer, but a god doesn't. Why not? It violates parsimony by positing even more complexity - a sentient, volitional, powerful agency - to account for it.

I agree with the system that admits it is imperfect and is willing to adjust as needed. I don't know where you got the impression that religion doesn't do that. We do, all the time.

Religions don't correct their errors. Science does, including those found in holy books, the non-fundamentalist religions adapting accordingly. Young Earth Creationists extend their timelines to conform with modern cosmology and geology, begin calling their disproven stories allegories with a message.

Anyone who doesn't believe as you do, or are not "on your level" is incompetent, isn't that true?

No, anybody who can't do the job is incompetent. People with insufficient interest and education in science, for example, make mistakes when they discuss it that people competent in the field never make ad readily recognize.

I think you guys just want to feel superior, and because persons are not submitting to you - bowing down on their knees, or fleeing in terror,or just simply cowering in a corner and keeping quiet, you feel threatened, and your egos have been stamped on, so what do you do? You lash out in an attempt to feel mighty, and fuel your ego, by calling the person dishonest, or ignorant, etc.

Nope. Not threatened. We feel correct. It is possible to know that the other guy is wrong when he doesn't, and I'm pretty sure that most of reason and evidence based thinkers here are secure in their beliefs.

 

[nPeace]

I like to watch Forensic Files, and have already seen several episodes where up to three different eyewitnesses identified the wrong person, as confirmed by the scientific evidence. One such episode was seen yesterday - a woman who misidentified her husband as her attacker, for which he did 18 years in prison before advances in DNA testing led to his exoneration and release.

I was not saying that the testimony should be accepted without investigation. My analogy showed it was dismissed without further information.
Perhaps because they dismissed the eyewitness' testimony, and refused to follow that lead, they miss evidence pertinent to the case, and are satisfied with what they have.

There is a difference between an unfounded assumption, such as that man was created by a god, and one supported by evidence and experience. I'm going to go out on a limb here an assume that you formed in your mother's womb some number of decades ago, was born and took your first breath one day, continued to grow and develop after that including learning to speak and write. And I've never met you. How did I do? Did I get any of it right? Were those reasonable assumptions, or should we just nihilistically throw our hands up and say that these are mere assumptions that have no value?

A man created by God is not an unfounded assumption, in the same way that a robot made by a man, is not an unfounded assumption.
You are not making assumptions based on anything you haven't seen, or don't know to have happened, and must have happened.
A child who is told that a stork delivered them to their mom, would not know otherwise, unless they saw and experienced the process that really takes place. Without any of that knowledge they will assume.
I think some make the mistake of thinking that because people wear fancy lab coats, and use fancy terms, they are the only ones that can gather evidence, and make inference from them.
That simply is not reality.

No, but they don't need to be. They just need to be useful. If an idea can be used to predict or control outcomes better than competing ideas, we throw out the ones that don't work and keep the one that does.

Newton's views on gravity were not 100% correct as Einstein later demonstrated, but they work in most engineering applications including space travel, and account for most astronomical observation. So, they are still used and useful. This is called empirical adequacy.

Instrumentalism is the philosophical position that statements including scientific theories may be tools for useful prediction without reference to their possible truth or falsity.

Science, when used correctly, is a good instrument.
When it is misused and abused, it no longer appears useful.
Some speak of science, in a way similar to the Dawkins and Krauss crowd.
Science is ongoing. It doesn't stop at point D and say, "This is it." because further tests and discoveries, reveal new information, and this information is used for further discoveries. Some of these discoveries reveal that some earlier understandings that were assumed need to change. That is how science works.

Many scientists are not ashamed about that, because they understand that they are using a methodology that is limited, and their own senses which are needed to make inference are limited. So they continue to do science, and some admit that one discovery can overturn practically everything they think they know.

However, they are those atheistic minded, who think that science somehow proves something. It doesn't.
That, to me is a misuse of science. Science does not disprove, nor prove what it can't possibly know.
Sure, men can work out their algorithms, but that's all they have.

Scientists are not the only ones with ideas, nor are they the only ones with empirical evidence, and who use the scientific method. If that were the case, everyone else may as well be blind, deaf, and completely insensitive to everything.

Correct isn't the best word. Useful is. Was Newton correct? Not as correct as Einstein, but Newton's ideas were and remain very useful. We modify existing ideas to make them more useful when possible.

If a hypotheses is useful to predict outcomes, we keep it and use it. If tweaking it or adding to it makes it better at predicting outcomes, then keep the modifications, too. Correct isn't relevant.

Thank you. I appreciate that. It sounds like science.

One way is by noting features in whatever it is that is being considered that don't appear in nature without an intelligence present. A watch cog is something that nature never provides. It must be manufactured. So, a polished, pure aluminum, circular object with multiple teeth of equal length and regular spacing can be called intelligently designed.

Written symbolic language is another example of something that always requires intelligence.

So are you saying that you eliminate all things that you don't see a need for intelligent design.
How do you determine if something required an intelligent designer?

Contradictory physical evidence.

What was the contrary physical evidence?
Was it the DNA samples from the drops of blood; the fingerprints?
So someone who claims they witnesses the crime, and the one in custody is innocent, and you refuse to investigate?
What kind of detective are you? Not one I would hire.

Detectives do miss evidence - like where there may be two sets of blood drops/stains, or fingerprint. So the real perpetrator(s) get away because of sloppy detective work.

 

[nPeace]

Science is not interested in anything that doesn't help it discover how the elements of our world relate to one another.

Atheists aren't interested faith-based religious beliefs. We seldom care what others choose to believe by faith. Being empiricists, what atheists care about is what such people know and can demonstrate.

Should you not be speaking for yourself? That not what I find in some cases.

2 apples mixed with 2 more apples gives 4 apples. If you want to say that that is supposition, subjective interpretation, or believed by faith, then what is the basis for continued discussion? Coming to such conclusions is useful, which is evidence of the validity of the underlying assumptions and principles of empirical activity such as science and much of daily life.

Apparently you cherry picked my post.
Taking out bits from a logical argument will lead to illogical comments.

There is no evidence that life was designed or that it exists for an intended goal. Concluding an intelligent designer looking at the complexity of a living cell is a special pleading fallacy, and a violation of Occam's parsimony. What one is doing there is saying that "This cell seems too complex to me to have arisen undesigned, so I'm concluding that there must be a designer."

Not only is that an incredulity fallacy ("I can't imagine it, so it can't be true"), but it is special pleading to say that a cell needs a designer, but a god doesn't. Why not? It violates parsimony by positing even more complexity - a sentient, volitional, powerful agency - to account for it.

Where did I say anything about complexity? Nowhere.
Complexity is not design. Design can be complex, and have varying levels of complexity.
Design is what is specific to an object, using a set of primitive components, functioning to satisfy specific requirements, intended to reach specific goals.

Religions don't correct their errors. Science does, including those found in holy books, the non-fundamentalist religions adapting accordingly. Young Earth Creationists extend their timelines to conform with modern cosmology and geology, begin calling their disproven stories allegories with a message.

You are hugely mistaken. Religion does correct mistakes, and seeks to adjust as light becomes lighter.
I'm am actually shocked that you would contradict me. You must know something about my religion that I don't, so please tell me what it is.
By the way, I am no YEC.

No, anybody who can't do the job is incompetent. People with insufficient interest and education in science, for example, make mistakes when they discuss it that people competent in the field never make ad readily recognize.

So tell me. How are you so expert on all the thousands of different religion?
So I take it you agree that you are incompetent in discussing religion with those seriously involved in it, because you will make mistakes - huge ones to besides.

Nope. Not threatened. We feel correct. It is possible to know that the other guy is wrong when he doesn't, and I'm pretty sure that most of reason and evidence based thinkers here are secure in their beliefs.

Right. I should have said superior, but they feel their ego is threatened.
I agree with your last statement. It's too bad that some try to convince themselves that religious people do not use sound reason and evidence. It's only a bubble in the mind of the skeptic.

 

[nPeace]

Why would I thank you for copy-pasting wikipedia without quotation marks?

Pity you did not read down a bit further in your wiki link to see this:

Curious as to why you thought I did not know what evidence it.

I didn't say, thank me.
Pity you guys are always assuming what people did, or did not do; know, or do not know.
Currently killed the cat, so don't stay curious. Recognize something for what it is.

I am sure I will be totally overwhelmed by the impressive nature of this demonstration...

Please define "true science."

Are you serious?

I gave you what you asked for.
Asking for what you want to see, is not written in a statistical book. They are seen on a daily basis - living walking breathing. You can't get more real than that. They are written too, in black and white - both past (Hebrews 11-12:1), and present, and in the future, I look forward to seeing them), not like your colorful chart there.
But you view them as silly, so why do you ask to see something you don't want to see? Wouldn't that be silly?
No one is going to write down how many times they had sex, in a book, so to ask for data to demonstrate that one had a real experience, in something that does not concern natural science, is beyond silly. Agreed?

Shame that you did not even try to answer my question, most likely because you cannot, even using your imaginary "Christian science."

Perhaps it's because you don't want to answer the one I asked.

I looked through the other post, but there appeared to be only a feeble attempt at mockery, so I saw nothing else to comment on.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you determine if something required an intelligent designer?

Required an intelligent or had one? Required implies that no natural, blind, undirected process could be responsible. Any stone I encounter could be a carved artifact, but I might not recognize it as such. So we can't tell if some things are intelligently designed.

I'll accept the ID crowds criteria: specified and irreducible complexity are evidence of intelligence.

I was not saying that the testimony should be accepted without investigation. My analogy showed it was dismissed without further information.

I was not saying that the testimony should not be investigated. Your complaint seemed to be that there was more trust in the science than in eyewitness testimony.

Perhaps because they dismissed the eyewitness' testimony, and refused to follow that lead, they miss evidence pertinent to the case, and are satisfied with what they have.

I wouldn't know. If the forensic evidence contradicts eyewitness testimony, go with the science. It is more reliable.

A man created by God is not an unfounded assumption

If one assumes that man was made by a god, he has made an unfounded assumption. He may be correct, but to assume that he is is premature without better evidence of that claim.

I think some make the mistake of thinking that because people wear fancy lab coats, and use fancy terms, they are the only ones that can gather evidence, and make inference from them.

It's not their outfits that inspire confidence in the scientists. It's their stunning success in understanding and predicting nature.

But you are correct - we can all be scientists, gathering evidence and making decisions based on it, such as looking both ways before deciding to crossing the street.

they are those atheistic minded, who think that science somehow proves something. It doesn't.

Most of us know know what science can and cannot do. Proof isn't relevant. Efficacy is. If an idea can be used to predict some aspect of nature under some specified circumstances, we keep and use the idea.

What was the contrary physical evidence? Was it the DNA samples from the drops of blood; the fingerprints?

That depends on the case. It might have been fingerprints (including palm prints), or DNA, or hairs or fibers, or shoe or tire tracks, or voice or handwriting analysis, or soil or paint chip analysis, or insects on a dead body.

So someone who claims they witnesses the crime, and the one in custody is innocent, and you refuse to investigate? What kind of detective are you? Not one I would hire.

No. I refuse to investigate nothing. But I might choose to disbelieve eyewitness testimony if contradicted by the scientific evidence.

You are hugely mistaken. Religion does correct mistakes

Please provide an example where a religion corrected its mistake without having first been shown to be in error by science.

So tell me. How are you so expert on all the thousands of different religion?

I'm not. Nor do I need to be to decide that I'm uninterested in any ideology or worldview based in faith. I know its limitations.

So I take it you agree that you are incompetent in discussing religion with those seriously involved in it

No, I am quite competent at discussing religion.

It's too bad that some try to convince themselves that religious people do not use sound reason and evidence.

Religious people use faith, a method that almost no chance at arriving at truth. Once you introduce an idea believed to be fact by faith, you have left sound reason behind.

 

[oldbadger]

8%. A telling demonstration of the major misinformation indoctrination that goes on within the JW faith,​

Morning Skwim! Well, it's morning here...
Now let's see what you've dug up here.......

You Display this thread under the title:-
Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

.........but kick off on a different subject which shows that no group in the world totally embraces evolution. Me? I don't fully accept either explanation ......

which is no doubt abetted by their lack of higher education.

...and then you veer off into JW education standards.
Skwim, if you have a very high level; of education, please demonstrate it with your amazing debate about..... evolution. If you can....
Over here many many JWs beeline towards TRADES like mechanic, bricklayer, plasterer, roofer, electrician etc.... because they become the best that they can be in these, they earn a very good wage, can operate in self-employed mini-businesses which give them more time-freedom for supporting their religion, Skwim.
I personally think that much of this 'higher-education' is junk and many of our UK degrees can't even find a useful job with theirs, but 'Dammit' Skwim, they can sound good at parties ...

Oh........ what are your degrees, Skwim? What is/was your work? Care to share?
​

Then there's this:

Go on, then.......

"JWs maintain that the Bible is consistent with modern science, except the entire field of evolutionary biology and parts of geology and archaeology, which are wrong because of the influence of Satan, pagan philosophy and depraved Christian clergy."
​

OK........ and so we (well me, actually) wait in shivering quivering excitement for you to put their argument to bed forever, because so far in the many years that you have bneen on RF you clearly haven't kicked all this in to touch, you've failed so far. So let's get to it!

-- "Therefore dear JW member, don't even go near evolutionary writings lest ye be pulled away from your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and fall into lie filled pit of deception."

Skwim....... you have shown a clear and (hopefully) concise debate for evolution 'as is' at this point. The devil can't be holding you back, surely?

So you start a debate about ......... trashing their educational standards without pointing out that their employment stats will be very high, singling them out when a % of every religion is unsure about evolution, you fail to mention that many scientists are unsure about evolution '#as is' and you don't offer any simple ideas of your own? Bah!


Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

 

[John53]

Morning Skwim! Well, it's morning here...
Now let's see what you've dug up here.......

You Display this thread under the title:-
Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

.........but kick off on a different subject which shows that no group in the world totally embraces evolution. Me? I don't fully accept either explanation ......


...and then you veer off into JW education standards.
Skwim, if you have a very high level; of education, please demonstrate it with your amazing debate about..... evolution. If you can....
Over here many many JWs beeline towards TRADES like mechanic, bricklayer, plasterer, roofer, electrician etc.... because they become the best that they can be in these, they earn a very good wage, can operate in self-employed mini-businesses which give them more time-freedom for supporting their religion, Skwim.
I personally think that much of this 'higher-education' is junk and many of our UK degrees can't even find a useful job with theirs, but 'Dammit' Skwim, they can sound good at parties ...

Oh........ what are your degrees, Skwim? What is/was your work? Care to share?
​

Go on, then.......


OK........ and so we (well me, actually) wait in shivering quivering excitement for you to put their argument to bed forever, because so far in the many years that you have bneen on RF you clearly haven't kicked all this in to touch, you've failed so far. So let's get to it!



Skwim....... you have shown a clear and (hopefully) concise debate for evolution 'as is' at this point. The devil can't be holding you back, surely?

So you start a debate about ......... trashing their educational standards without pointing out that their employment stats will be very high, singling them out when a % of every religion is unsure about evolution, you fail to mention that many scientists are unsure about evolution '#as is' and you don't offer any simple ideas of your own? Bah!


Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

Do you have anything to add to the discussion (if so I've missed it) or was this just a personal attack on Skwim?